We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I think there's something magnificent about Bercow's pomposity. And he seems to irritate the hell out of all the right people.
The phrase I most dislike in politics is "it annoys all the right people" (or variations).
I live in the Sewell ward of Norwich, where we had two deferred elections on Thursday following the death of the Tory candidate after close of nominations prior to the elections scheduled for 6th May. The boundaries were identical - yet Labour held on to the County Council seat by circa 130 votes whilst losing the City Council seat to the Greens by circa 160. The Greens certainly mounted a strong campaign - delivering 6 leaflets compared with 4 from Labour and no literature at all from the Tories and LDs. I have now been told that Natalie Bennett - the former Green Party leader - was active here on Polling Day - including acting as a Teller. For some reason, the national party appears to have attached particular importance to those two elections!
Norwich was a Green hotspot for a while a few year back iirc. It was a target place for a parliamentary seat. Then it went a bit cool.
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
No, he’s vile, the Gollum of British politics.
Quite possibly true in more ways than one.
As foreseen by Gandalf at the start of the Lord of the Rings, Gollum famously had a critical role to play at the end of it.
Arguably Bercow's meddling with Parliamentary procedures against the clerks advice, in order to facilitate amendments by Grieve and ultimately the Benn Act, played the critical role in stoking the anger against the 2017-19 Parliament that allowed Boris to win his election and Get Brexit Done.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
I wasn't suggesting you had entirely dismissed the criticism, but it did come across as still a rather basic if inadvertent deflection (and now whataboutery), by suggesting that people's dislike of Bercow may not be for the reasons they claim it is, in part because your own experience of him was much more pleasant, which I'm sure is true (and I agree the bullying stuff is not what is behind Bercow not getting a peerage for instance) but is unlikely to change the broad picture - there being more to him doesn't necessarily affect the conclusion people have of him.
After all, there's more to Corbyn and Boris too, but that doesn't undermine the opinion many here hold of both when they criticise them without bringing up the nuance. They don't bring up that nuance every time, does that undo the criticisms?
I would agree that Bercow is not a pantomime villain, except insofar as he seemed to enjoy the pantomime of the role - in which case he or others finding fault with people seeing him in that context seems misplaced to me. One thing people can surely agree on is that Bercow enjoyed the limelight and the theatricalilty of the role in his performances - and people respond to him theatrically as well. Not only can he have no complaints about that, I imagine he would be disappointed if they did not. That's the game he played.
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
Get a muzzle.
It's a bit late to muzzle the wife now, as we already have the dog.
I live in the Sewell ward of Norwich, where we had two deferred elections on Thursday following the death of the Tory candidate after close of nominations prior to the elections scheduled for 6th May. The boundaries were identical - yet Labour held on to the County Council seat by circa 130 votes whilst losing the City Council seat to the Greens by circa 160. The Greens certainly mounted a strong campaign - delivering 6 leaflets compared with 4 from Labour and no literature at all from the Tories and LDs. I have now been told that Natalie Bennett - the former Green Party leader - was active here on Polling Day - including acting as a Teller. For some reason, the national party appears to have attached particular importance to those two elections!
Norwich was a Green hotspot for a while a few year back iirc. It was a target place for a parliamentary seat. Then it went a bit cool.
Indeed so - though that was Norwich South. The Sewell ward falls in Norwich North where the Greens have few good prospects - as evidenced by the 2009 Parliamentary by election - held at the peak of the local Green surge - when they ended up 5th behind UKIP. Perhaps it was simply a case of taking advantage of a double election to boost their local standing , though I would have thought that Chesham & Amersham merited a higher priority. It partly worked for them - in that had the elections gone ahead as planned on 6th May , I strongly suspect Labour would have won both seats fairly comfortably.
Just watched a replay of the Polish goal, and it looked like the goalscorer pushed one of the Spanish defenders out of the way just before he jumped to head the goal in. Isn't that a foul?
Looks a bit dubious. But i get the impression that VAR in this tournament is being used far more sparingly to over-rule on pitch decisions in this tournament than we are used to in the Premier League.
Which on balance, i consider a good thing.
Indeed the VAR is being very well done, to the point of being barely visible, which is how it should be.
Do we know that he's joining Labour because he was denied a seat in the HoL? Isn't it just a case of what first attracted you to the multi millionaire Paul Daniels?'
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
Bercow joining Labour would, I think, worry SKS more than Boris.
If (impossibly) in due course Mr Speaker Hoyle joined the Tories it would, I think, worry SKS more than Boris.
That's the difference.
Who cares about Bercow?. It is being suggested that he can attack Boris but he is like Cummings.. No-one cares about a nasty little man like Bercow. He fails as does Cummings.. the... would you buy a used car from.this man,?
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 2m INDEPENDENT DIGITAL: Record demand at A&E puts patient lives ‘at risk’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
I'm old enough to remember when certain people on PB were predicting that the UK would host Euro 2020 by themselves while the rest of Europe would look on enviously.
Re Bercow, there are really three facets to his time as speaker - two of which were negative and one which was positive.
The negatives were: 1. His personal bullying of underlings and then the use of his office to cover it up. (Albeit one should remember than Ms Patel is probably guilty of that too.) 2. The way he allowed his personal political beliefs to affect his role as Speaker, particularly as regards Brexit.
The positive was: 1. He stood up for backbench MPs against the Executive, which given that the Executive has steadily gained power relative to the Legislature is no bad thing.
In general, he's a failure. But I'd put him slightly higher up the ladder of Speakers than Martin - albeit in the same way I'd rather have Syphilis than Herpes.
Thing is, is there any real evidence that he stood up for the back benchers against the Executive except in areas where he was in agreement with the back benchers or basically hated the Executive?
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
What is the downside of the dog being put down? If you want a dog buy it as a puppy and bring it up to be a nice dog. The world is oversupplied with fucking horrible quote rescue unquote dogs which get sent to shelters in the first place because they are too fucking horrible for their owners to deal with but nobody can cope with the guilt of terminating them. Dogs which bite humans, or other dogs, or livestock, need killing.
Bercow should stand as the Labour candidate in Buckingham at the next election. He's popular in the constituency so loads of neutrals would vote for him as would Remainer Tories, the Lib Dems and the (ever increasing number of) Boris-phobic Tories. That would really rub Boris's nose in it for denying him that peerage.
John Bercow attacks Conservative Party sounds a bit dog-bites-man. Though if he's going to be calling people nasty, xenophobic and reactionary he's at risk of having his past thrown back at him.
EDIT - Apologies, no he sat on the data which showed the vaccines were much more effective than had previously been assumed against Delta. Different witholding, same outcome.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
What is the downside of the dog being put down? If you want a dog buy it as a puppy and bring it up to be a nice dog. The world is oversupplied with fucking horrible quote rescue unquote dogs which get sent to shelters in the first place because they are too fucking horrible for their owners to deal with but nobody can cope with the guilt of terminating them. Dogs which bite humans, or other dogs, or livestock, need killing.
Can see a pretty hefty downside from the dog's POV.
John Bercow attacks Conservative Party sounds a bit dog-bites-man. Though if he's going to be calling people nasty, xenophobic and reactionary he's at risk of having his past thrown back at him.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
Are there any examples of non hierarchical social structures, except possibly among ants and termites and so on?
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
What is the downside of the dog being put down? If you want a dog buy it as a puppy and bring it up to be a nice dog. The world is oversupplied with fucking horrible quote rescue unquote dogs which get sent to shelters in the first place because they are too fucking horrible for their owners to deal with but nobody can cope with the guilt of terminating them. Dogs which bite humans, or other dogs, or livestock, need killing.
Can see a pretty hefty downside from the dog's POV.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
Are there any examples of non hierarchical social structures, except possibly among ants and termites and so on?
Not may perfect examples, but PB comes fairly close with its light touch moderation.
John Bercow attacks Conservative Party sounds a bit dog-bites-man. Though if he's going to be calling people nasty, xenophobic and reactionary he's at risk of having his past thrown back at him.
But why would he do that? Unless he was totally f*cking useless, which we know he's not, because Boris said so.
Presumably because he wanted to persuade the PM to extend lockdown. Because [a) he's the health secretary, not the chancellor, or the PM, or anyone else whose ministry benefits from opening up, and/or b) he's of the zerocovidian-nutter wing, and/or c) he's a c*nt] OR d) he's disorganised and inefficient.
John Bercow attacks Conservative Party sounds a bit dog-bites-man. Though if he's going to be calling people nasty, xenophobic and reactionary he's at risk of having his past thrown back at him.
But why would he do that? Unless he was totally f*cking useless, which we know he's not, because Boris said so.
Presumably because he wanted to persuade the PM to extend lockdown. Because [a) he's the health secretary, not the chancellor, or the PM, or anyone else whose ministry benefits from opening up, and/or b) he's of the zerocovidian-nutter wing, and/or c) he's a c*nt] OR d) he's disorganised and inefficient.
He's 1/5 a; 1/5b; 1/5c; 1/5d and 1/5 "fucking hopeless"
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 2m INDEPENDENT DIGITAL: Record demand at A&E puts patient lives ‘at risk’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
What are all these record A&E presentations presenting with? Because by definition it can't be Covid.
I know. That's what I'm wondering. Suspect some of this is because some GPs are still refusing to see patients face to face.
That, and people cannot get outpatients appointments either. The system is seizing up.
Is there any forward thinking/planning in any part of Government (whether it be Health, Education, Criminal Justice...) about how we actually get into a position where the country can get running reasonably normally again, to some extent regardless of the Coronavirus situation in the background?
It's bad enough that further lockdowns are still apparently being considered as a go to policy for Autumn/winter when really, whilst acceptable as an emergency measure in response to an unknown threat, it should really be possible by now to rule out ever returning to that state of affairs and finding another way.
Somewhere along the line the Government has to stop thinking about how everything has to be done to combat Covid, and actually begin to trade off Covid risks against the serious damage many Covid measures are doing to wider society that could take decades to unravel.
Re Bercow, there are really three facets to his time as speaker - two of which were negative and one which was positive.
The negatives were: 1. His personal bullying of underlings and then the use of his office to cover it up. (Albeit one should remember than Ms Patel is probably guilty of that too.) 2. The way he allowed his personal political beliefs to affect his role as Speaker, particularly as regards Brexit.
The positive was: 1. He stood up for backbench MPs against the Executive, which given that the Executive has steadily gained power relative to the Legislature is no bad thing.
In general, he's a failure. But I'd put him slightly higher up the ladder of Speakers than Martin - albeit in the same way I'd rather have Syphilis than Herpes.
Thing is, is there any real evidence that he stood up for the back benchers against the Executive except in areas where he was in agreement with the back benchers or basically hated the Executive?
Yes. For instance, he let PMQs (and other Qs) overrun to accommodate backbenchers' questions. He cannot have known what would be asked.
John Bercow attacks Conservative Party sounds a bit dog-bites-man. Though if he's going to be calling people nasty, xenophobic and reactionary he's at risk of having his past thrown back at him.
But why would he do that? Unless he was totally f*cking useless, which we know he's not, because Boris said so.
Presumably because he wanted to persuade the PM to extend lockdown. Because [a) he's the health secretary, not the chancellor, or the PM, or anyone else whose ministry benefits from opening up, and/or b) he's of the zerocovidian-nutter wing, and/or c) he's a c*nt] OR d) he's disorganised and inefficient.
Sadly whatever his motivation it has just given another example of poor, or out of date data being used to impose things on the populace. Just hope the cases carry on not accelerating away, and we may sneak out into freedom in July.
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
What is the downside of the dog being put down? If you want a dog buy it as a puppy and bring it up to be a nice dog. The world is oversupplied with fucking horrible quote rescue unquote dogs which get sent to shelters in the first place because they are too fucking horrible for their owners to deal with but nobody can cope with the guilt of terminating them. Dogs which bite humans, or other dogs, or livestock, need killing.
Can see a pretty hefty downside from the dog's POV.
If it hasn't been tried already, I would put the dog on a raw food diet, and give it plenty of exercise and controlled play time.
Raw food is more hassle but much better for dogs. I have seen it transform their behaviour, in particular reducing aggression and hyperactivity.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
No, we just need to put in the effort to investigate and shame those who do it, and punish those without shame. That's hard as its very easy for us to let it slide as those on 'our' side in any institution will encourage us to let it slide for them.
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 2m INDEPENDENT DIGITAL: Record demand at A&E puts patient lives ‘at risk’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
What are all these record A&E presentations presenting with? Because by definition it can't be Covid.
I know. That's what I'm wondering. Suspect some of this is because some GPs are still refusing to see patients face to face.
That, and people cannot get outpatients appointments either. The system is seizing up.
Is there any forward thinking/planning in any part of Government (whether it be Health, Education, Criminal Justice...) about how we actually get into a position where the country can get running reasonably normally again, to some extent regardless of the Coronavirus situation in the background?
It's bad enough that further lockdowns are still apparently being considered as a go to policy for Autumn/winter when really, whilst acceptable as an emergency measure in response to an unknown threat, it should really be possible by now to rule out ever returning to that state of affairs and finding another way.
Somewhere along the line the Government has to stop thinking about how everything has to be done to combat Covid, and actually begin to trade off Covid risks against the serious damage many Covid measures are doing to wider society that could take decades to unravel.
Yep. But it seems to me that the government is basically now run by Hancock and Gove who are both lockdown fanatics. They have spent so long in the trench fighting covid they cannot see that it is time to move on and deal with the fallout from their policy. Perhaps they don't want to as they are enjoying it all too much.
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
Just been enjoying the final of BBC Cardiff Singer of the World on BBC4.
Unlike football matches, culture is not well supported by Government, so we had an internationally renowned competition in St David's Hall without an audience.
5 amazing young opera singers, with the prize awarded to Gihoon Kim from South Korea. What a wonderful singer.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
Sorry defects is the wrong description "finally admits his allegiance" would be more on point
Question - when Speakers give up the whip do they actually give up formal party membership too? As if that is the case then presumably Bercow defected from Independent, which he would have been since 2009 unless he rejoined the Tories after his term as Speaker ended.
John Bercow attacks Conservative Party sounds a bit dog-bites-man. Though if he's going to be calling people nasty, xenophobic and reactionary he's at risk of having his past thrown back at him.
But why would he do that? Unless he was totally f*cking useless, which we know he's not, because Boris said so.
Presumably because he wanted to persuade the PM to extend lockdown. Because [a) he's the health secretary, not the chancellor, or the PM, or anyone else whose ministry benefits from opening up, and/or b) he's of the zerocovidian-nutter wing, and/or c) he's a c*nt] OR d) he's disorganised and inefficient.
He is the Health Secretary. But he behaves as if he is the Covid Secretary. What about all the other conditions? What about the mental health crisis? The cancer crisis?
As Harvard's Kulldorff argues: "You cannot just focus on one disease like COVID, you have to look at public health as a whole. That has been the huge failure of our pandemic response."
As for attack dog for Labour....the Red Wall aren't going to be impressed are they Mike...Mr Stop Brexit as many of them see him giving it large... will just remind all those Brexit voters that between him and Starmer weren't on their side (or that of democracy).
He isn't a powerful speakers, he comes across as arrogant and pompous.
True, but maybe the red wall is already lost. I’ve no idea whether Bercow will appeal in the blue wall but it’s true Labour do lack an attack dog.
Chihuahuas can be quite aggressive yappy dogs, but they rarely do much damage.
I wish our one was unable to do damage. She's a compulsive ankle biter, and can easily result people requiring a stitch or two.
But if we take her back to the shelter, she'll be put down, so we're stuck with her for another 15 or so years.
What is the downside of the dog being put down? If you want a dog buy it as a puppy and bring it up to be a nice dog. The world is oversupplied with fucking horrible quote rescue unquote dogs which get sent to shelters in the first place because they are too fucking horrible for their owners to deal with but nobody can cope with the guilt of terminating them. Dogs which bite humans, or other dogs, or livestock, need killing.
Can see a pretty hefty downside from the dog's POV.
If it hasn't been tried already, I would put the dog on a raw food diet, and give it plenty of exercise and controlled play time.
Raw food is more hassle but much better for dogs. I have seen it transform their behaviour, in particular reducing aggression and hyperactivity.
Do we need more saints? John Paul II was crazy when it came to saint making apparently, and there's tons and tons who have been put on the path but haven't had it confirmed yet.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
No, we just need to put in the effort to investigate and shame those who do it, and punish those without shame. That's hard as its very easy for us to let it slide as those on 'our' side in any institution will encourage us to let it slide for them.
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Yes, but the problem is that the perpetrators are not punished. I cite Priti Patel.
The problem is not the rotten eggs, it is the rotten nature of hierarchical organisations which constantly generates new rotten eggs. Much better are horizontal interconnected nodes. Modern technology allows this in ways that just weren't possible a few decades ago.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
Luckily I imagine its all a bit complex and involved for him, otherwise I think his whatsapp messages might be a bit more fruity than f##king useless.
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
And this news comes only days after Cummings accused him of lying during the crisis.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
No, we just need to put in the effort to investigate and shame those who do it, and punish those without shame. That's hard as its very easy for us to let it slide as those on 'our' side in any institution will encourage us to let it slide for them.
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Yes, but the problem is that the perpetrators are not punished. I cite Priti Patel.
The problem is not the rotten eggs, it is the rotten nature of hierarchical organisations which constantly generates new rotten eggs. Much better are horizontal interconnected nodes. Modern technology allows this in ways that just weren't possible a few decades against.
That's why I said we need to put in effort. Left to themselves institutions will always protect themselves and the people therein, so its a mostly futile grind to make enough societal shame that enough people around those institutions can enforce the right thing. It'll never be perfect, and its a long way off perfect right now.
I don't even know what your second paragraph is saying. I believe modern technology can do a lot of things, but stopping people forming hierarchies, even unofficial ones, seems beyond it to me.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
They knew about them in advance. They knew that they would have a big impact on the range of projections and central assumptions in the models. They just hadn't formally plugged them in to officially revise the numbers.
But nevertheless thought there was nothing wrong with publishing the existing modelling/graphs as background to the June 21st decision.
At the Battle of the Somme the initial bombardment of the German lines used the wrong type of shells, and was known to have likely been largely ineffective in its aims, in advance of the formal order to go over the top being given. But the generals were so committed to the plan that they went ahead anyway.
Apologies for that little non-seqitur/diversion...
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
Did it cross the mind of the PM to ask? Or to inform himself? Or prepare for the meeting?
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
And this news comes only days after Cummings accused him of lying during the crisis.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
The problem is we just know that Johnson wont have asked the tricky, probing questions. He would have just quickly breezed through the meeting blustering around and making jokes.
Imagine Thatcher chairing this covid Quad of ministers.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
Did it cross the mind of the PM to ask? Or to inform himself? Or prepare for the meeting?
Well quite. Ministers were wibbling on about acting on the very latest data which was changing all the time. Johnson would surely have been aware of the PHE study.
But then accepted modelling that only went up to June 9th.
OGH has promoted Hoyle's rebuke from almost unprecedented to unprecedented in the space of 4 days or thereabouts. Bercow as a powerful speaker is neither here nor there - lacks a platform for starters, especially in the days of covid when platforms are hard to come by - but he is very dangerous as an advisor to Starmer. Could probably give him the odd tip about what makes a successful pmq for starters.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
No, we just need to put in the effort to investigate and shame those who do it, and punish those without shame. That's hard as its very easy for us to let it slide as those on 'our' side in any institution will encourage us to let it slide for them.
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Yes, but the problem is that the perpetrators are not punished. I cite Priti Patel.
The problem is not the rotten eggs, it is the rotten nature of hierarchical organisations which constantly generates new rotten eggs. Much better are horizontal interconnected nodes. Modern technology allows this in ways that just weren't possible a few decades against.
That's why I said we need to put in effort. Left to themselves institutions will always protect themselves and the people therein, so its a mostly futile grind to make enough societal shame that enough people around those institutions can enforce the right thing. It'll never be perfect, and its a long way off perfect right now.
I don't even know what your second paragraph is saying. I believe modern technology can do a lot of things, but stopping people forming hierarchies, even unofficial ones, seems beyond it to me.
There is quite a lot of interest in non-heirarchical management in the literature. It isn't entirely new.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
I think there's zero chance of them bringing forward the July date. They will say that whatever the detail available on June 14th there were still a large range of possibilities and it was right to be cautious. And that if the vaccines were more effective than thought then that makes an even greater case for delay to allow everyone time to be vaccinated.
They will reason that this is a far lesser evil than precipitously opening up having admitted they made a mistake only to potentially see something go wrong with the figures shortly afterwards.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
The problem is we just know that Johnson wont have asked the tricky, probing questions. He would have just quickly breezed through the meeting blustering around and making jokes.
Imagine Thatcher chairing this covid Quad of ministers.
Johnson was too busy nursing his G7 photoshoot hangover, which was all his goldfish like memory could cope with.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
If we are in the middle of a major political realignment, the remarkable thing is that more politicians haven’t jumped sides. It doesn’t make any sense that only voters are reassessing where they stand.
Yet defections were much more common in the last century than now.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
No, we just need to put in the effort to investigate and shame those who do it, and punish those without shame. That's hard as its very easy for us to let it slide as those on 'our' side in any institution will encourage us to let it slide for them.
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Yes, but the problem is that the perpetrators are not punished. I cite Priti Patel.
The problem is not the rotten eggs, it is the rotten nature of hierarchical organisations which constantly generates new rotten eggs. Much better are horizontal interconnected nodes. Modern technology allows this in ways that just weren't possible a few decades against.
That's why I said we need to put in effort. Left to themselves institutions will always protect themselves and the people therein, so its a mostly futile grind to make enough societal shame that enough people around those institutions can enforce the right thing. It'll never be perfect, and its a long way off perfect right now.
I don't even know what your second paragraph is saying. I believe modern technology can do a lot of things, but stopping people forming hierarchies, even unofficial ones, seems beyond it to me.
There is quite a lot of interest in non-heirarchical management in the literature. It isn't entirely new.
It'd be nice if it worked, I know some companies with something (officially) along those lines. But I did a qualification once and one thing that comes up over and over again when reading stuff around management is that there are tons and tons of theories, some very influential, but the vast majority of theories don't have much actual evidence they work, so my natural position is to be skeptical of people selling new ways of thinking - which are usually rehashed old ways, something simple expressed in a complicated way or nonsense.
Maybe this would be one idea in a hundred which actually is innovative and effective, that'd be cool.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
I think there's zero chance of them bringing forward the July date. They will say that whatever the detail available on June 14th there were still a large range of possibilities and it was right to be cautious. And that if the vaccines were more effective than thought then that makes an even greater case for delay to allow everyone time to be vaccinated.
They will reason that this is a far lesser evil than precipitously opening up having admitted they made a mistake only to potentially see something go wrong with the figures shortly afterwards.
True enough. For what it's worth, I don't think they'll fully unlock in July either.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
I think there's zero chance of them bringing forward the July date. They will say that whatever the detail available on June 14th there were still a large range of possibilities and it was right to be cautious. And that if the vaccines were more effective than thought then that makes an even greater case for delay to allow everyone time to be vaccinated.
They will reason that this is a far lesser evil than precipitously opening up having admitted they made a mistake only to potentially see something go wrong with the figures shortly afterwards.
I would say its unlikely but non-zero.
If it looks like hospitalisations etc have peaked or are nowhere near the graph in a fortnight's time they will be able to say that thanks to the extra data they're now confident.
But inertia plays now to letting the four weeks play out in full, regrettably.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
If we are in the middle of a major political realignment, the remarkable thing is that more politicians haven’t jumped sides. It doesn’t make any sense that only voters are reassessing where they stand.
Yet defections were much more common in the last century than now.
It was, frankly, astonishing, how well the party's held up particularly during the Brexit crisis and given how parties have changed over the years.
Sadly, those who eventually did bravely leave or were kicked out were not rewarded for it, and so the grip of the parties even when people don't really fit anymore is stronger than ever. The more ridiculous it gets the more people will talk about the need to be 'big tent' to justify it.
“I am motivated by support for equality, social justice and internationalism. That is the Labour brand,” he said. “The conclusion I have reached is that this government needs to be replaced. The reality is that the Labour party is the only vehicle that can achieve that objective. There is no other credible option.”
And I want my place in the House of Lords and Keir will give me that
How very spiteful.
People's political views change. Maybe Brecow's story is extreme, but it's not unique. Parties also change. The Conservatives of 2021 aren't the Conservatives of even 2017, let alone 2010. If Brecow is of the view that Johnson is a wrongun and that joining Labour is the best way to oppose that, best of luck to him.
It's showing a damn sight more integrity than those who knew Johnson shouldn't be let near the levers of power, but acquiesced in his victory and now sing his praises.
If we are in the middle of a major political realignment, the remarkable thing is that more politicians haven’t jumped sides. It doesn’t make any sense that only voters are reassessing where they stand.
Yet defections were much more common in the last century than now.
Is that true? There were a lot of defections in 2017-19.
That they didn't last past the 2019 election is neither here nor there.
Today’s football matches have been way more enjoyable than yesterday’s miserable spectacle
I think there's been an overreaction to the England v Scotland game. In hindsight it's perhaps not too surprising it was a draw. Though they'd never admit it, England would have taken that before the game as it almost certainly means they're through to the next round. And for Scotland it means they have a chance. Beat Croatia at home on Tuesday and they will probably be through. I think Scotland v Croatia will be well worth watching.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
No, we just need to put in the effort to investigate and shame those who do it, and punish those without shame. That's hard as its very easy for us to let it slide as those on 'our' side in any institution will encourage us to let it slide for them.
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Yes, but the problem is that the perpetrators are not punished. I cite Priti Patel.
The problem is not the rotten eggs, it is the rotten nature of hierarchical organisations which constantly generates new rotten eggs. Much better are horizontal interconnected nodes. Modern technology allows this in ways that just weren't possible a few decades against.
That's why I said we need to put in effort. Left to themselves institutions will always protect themselves and the people therein, so its a mostly futile grind to make enough societal shame that enough people around those institutions can enforce the right thing. It'll never be perfect, and its a long way off perfect right now.
I don't even know what your second paragraph is saying. I believe modern technology can do a lot of things, but stopping people forming hierarchies, even unofficial ones, seems beyond it to me.
There is quite a lot of interest in non-heirarchical management in the literature. It isn't entirely new.
It'd be nice if it worked, I know some companies with something (officially) along those lines. But I did a qualification once and one thing that comes up over and over again when reading stuff around management is that there are tons and tons of theories, some very influential, but the vast majority of theories don't have much actual evidence they work, so my natural position is to be skeptical of people selling new ways of thinking - which are usually rehashed old ways, something simple expressed in a complicated way or nonsense.
Maybe this would be one idea in a hundred which actually is innovative and effective, that'd be cool.
Certainly there is more than a little bullshit about Management and Business Studies!
In practice though, even in hierarchical organisations, people work in non hierarchical ways, because they know that things get done better that way. It is about having a relationship with those who can get things done. A simple example is me emailing a medical physics technician to discuss what investigations would clarify my provisional diagnosis of a patient. It is about allowing task specific teams to form and dissolve in an organic way.
In the NHS, the biggest obstacles to getting things done are egotistical managers and empire builders. Non-heirarchical working bypasses them.
I've met Bercow. Twice. He even came to speak at my university once.
He's perfectly pleasant for a few minutes, or even a couple of hours, to a constituent or humble activist. And that's because he doesn't feel his status is under question.
It's quite another matter if you have to work with him or for him.
We've all had our differences over Brexit, the election, Covid, the EU, Trump...
Finally, the one thing that unites us all comes along.
Bercow. Let us all hate TOGETHER.
Count me out.
I have met both John Bercow and Boris Johnson and the former was much politer then the latter - and really very charming. It surprised me because it did not fit with the public image. My husband has worked with him professionally - in relation to a planning matter in his constituency - and was impressed by his hard work and attention to detail. Husband is rarely impressed by anyone, let alone politicians, so I place a great deal of value on his opinion. He does not give praise easily.
Perhaps there is more to Bercow than the rather one-sided view many on here seem to have?
On topic, I am not sure it will make a great deal of difference to Labour.
I'm sure there is more to Bercow, and people have mentioned his standing up for Parliament against the executive as a positive thing, but it seems implausible to ascribe the many many reports of his arrogance and poor behaviour solely to political opponents of his, therefore I think it would be an overreaction to entirely dismiss those very numerous accounts on the basis of personal positive experience.
Politics is a brutal business, and when enemies are made a lot of shit gets thrown at people - but the amount of shit thrown at Bercow, and its breadth, is not normal political mucking about either. It's clearly not imaginary.
There are also examples of his poor Speakership which are unrelated to politics, as in the Clerk example I gave for instance. And criticism of him departing from procedure or convention with just cause (other than for political wishes) is a reasonable critique as well.
I am not dismissing the criticisms. He is, I think, a curate's egg. But some of the commentary on here is of the "Boo, hiss at the villain" level. And some of the criticisms from MPs have come from people who have been accused of exactly the same thing - bullying and harassment etc (see the details in the Dame Laura Cox report). So I simply wonder how much of the anger at Bercow being a bully, allegedly, is a convenient way of deflecting criticism of MPs accused of the same alleged behaviour.
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
It does rather depressing me that institution after institution in our country is revealed to be a toxic mess of bullying, corruption and incompetence.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
No, we just need to put in the effort to investigate and shame those who do it, and punish those without shame. That's hard as its very easy for us to let it slide as those on 'our' side in any institution will encourage us to let it slide for them.
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Yes, but the problem is that the perpetrators are not punished. I cite Priti Patel.
The problem is not the rotten eggs, it is the rotten nature of hierarchical organisations which constantly generates new rotten eggs. Much better are horizontal interconnected nodes. Modern technology allows this in ways that just weren't possible a few decades against.
That's why I said we need to put in effort. Left to themselves institutions will always protect themselves and the people therein, so its a mostly futile grind to make enough societal shame that enough people around those institutions can enforce the right thing. It'll never be perfect, and its a long way off perfect right now.
I don't even know what your second paragraph is saying. I believe modern technology can do a lot of things, but stopping people forming hierarchies, even unofficial ones, seems beyond it to me.
There is quite a lot of interest in non-heirarchical management in the literature. It isn't entirely new.
It'd be nice if it worked, I know some companies with something (officially) along those lines. But I did a qualification once and one thing that comes up over and over again when reading stuff around management is that there are tons and tons of theories, some very influential, but the vast majority of theories don't have much actual evidence they work, so my natural position is to be skeptical of people selling new ways of thinking - which are usually rehashed old ways, something simple expressed in a complicated way or nonsense.
Maybe this would be one idea in a hundred which actually is innovative and effective, that'd be cool.
Certainly there is more than a little bullshit about Management and Business Studies!
In practice though, even in hierarchical organisations, people work in non hierarchical ways, because they know that things get done better that way. It is about having a relationship with those who can get things done. A simple example is me emailing a medical physics technician to discuss what investigations would clarify my provisional diagnosis of a patient. It is about allowing task specific teams to form and dissolve in an organic way.
In the NHS, the biggest obstacles to getting things done are egotistical managers and empire builders. Non-heirarchical working bypasses them.
One of the issues you will find is that outside the NHS (and large chunks of government), the world has changed in this way already. Banks fired floors of people to flatten the hierarchies, for example.
The number of people between the nurses and the minister is well into double digits - which is insane by modern standards.
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
And this news comes only days after Cummings accused him of lying during the crisis.
Johnson should sack him over this.
I’d like to see Matt Hancock doing porridge
Any basis on which this.might be possible? The magnitude of the misery this one man has caused is immense. Not sure if there's any basis for criminal action though. A civil case, possibly - if someone's lies have led to the country being locked down that's pretty big news.
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
And this news comes only days after Cummings accused him of lying during the crisis.
Johnson should sack him over this.
I’d like to see Matt Hancock doing porridge
Any basis on which this.might be possible? The magnitude of the misery this one man has caused is immense. Not sure if there's any basis for criminal action though. A civil case, possibly - if someone's lies have led to the country being locked down that's pretty big news.
Minister are this week expected to announce plans to privatise Channel 4 – after months of tensions between No 10 and executives at the television station over its struggling finances and allegedly ‘woke’ agenda.
Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden has concluded that the channel does not have a viable future unless an ‘alternative ownership model’ is explored.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
I think there's zero chance of them bringing forward the July date. They will say that whatever the detail available on June 14th there were still a large range of possibilities and it was right to be cautious. And that if the vaccines were more effective than thought then that makes an even greater case for delay to allow everyone time to be vaccinated.
They will reason that this is a far lesser evil than precipitously opening up having admitted they made a mistake only to potentially see something go wrong with the figures shortly afterwards.
I would say its unlikely but non-zero.
If it looks like hospitalisations etc have peaked or are nowhere near the graph in a fortnight's time they will be able to say that thanks to the extra data they're now confident.
But inertia plays now to letting the four weeks play out in full, regrettably.
Bercow was a Royal pain in the arse as Speaker. I really don’t give 2 hoots what he is doing now. A nasty opinionated little man with no feeling for the responsibility of his office.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
I think there's zero chance of them bringing forward the July date. They will say that whatever the detail available on June 14th there were still a large range of possibilities and it was right to be cautious. And that if the vaccines were more effective than thought then that makes an even greater case for delay to allow everyone time to be vaccinated.
They will reason that this is a far lesser evil than precipitously opening up having admitted they made a mistake only to potentially see something go wrong with the figures shortly afterwards.
I would say its unlikely but non-zero.
If it looks like hospitalisations etc have peaked or are nowhere near the graph in a fortnight's time they will be able to say that thanks to the extra data they're now confident.
But inertia plays now to letting the four weeks play out in full, regrettably.
I don't think hospitalisations have peaked....
Is there a lag in hospitalisation figures? If so, I agree with you. If not, that could conceivably look peaky.
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
Whether you agree with the policy or not, do you really want a major decision affecting thousands of lives to be taken by Boris Johnson on his own? That's...brave.
I live in the Sewell ward of Norwich, where we had two deferred elections on Thursday following the death of the Tory candidate after close of nominations prior to the elections scheduled for 6th May. The boundaries were identical - yet Labour held on to the County Council seat by circa 130 votes whilst losing the City Council seat to the Greens by circa 160. The Greens certainly mounted a strong campaign - delivering 6 leaflets compared with 4 from Labour and no literature at all from the Tories and LDs. I have now been told that Natalie Bennett - the former Green Party leader - was active here on Polling Day - including acting as a Teller. For some reason, the national party appears to have attached particular importance to those two elections!
Slade mentioned that there were 8 local elections last week. He said one was a LibDem hold by 6 votes. How did the others go?
I did say it was rather interesting timing that the updated vaccine efficiency numbers came out 3 days after the big decision and badically invalidated all the models (that were already using incorrect numbers).
I imagine that should Johnson be following the detail of all this he will be f*cking furious that he has once again been bounced into a lockdown decision.
He should reverse the decision.
He does have the two week review date. I suggest he calls in all the data himself and not allow it to be filtered through Hancock.
Whether you agree with the policy or not, do you really want a major decision affecting thousands of lives to be taken by Boris Johnson on his own? That's...brave.
No, but I'd like him to be the one to take a decision that affects millions...
I live in the Sewell ward of Norwich, where we had two deferred elections on Thursday following the death of the Tory candidate after close of nominations prior to the elections scheduled for 6th May. The boundaries were identical - yet Labour held on to the County Council seat by circa 130 votes whilst losing the City Council seat to the Greens by circa 160. The Greens certainly mounted a strong campaign - delivering 6 leaflets compared with 4 from Labour and no literature at all from the Tories and LDs. I have now been told that Natalie Bennett - the former Green Party leader - was active here on Polling Day - including acting as a Teller. For some reason, the national party appears to have attached particular importance to those two elections!
Slade mentioned that there were 8 local elections last week. He said one was a LibDem hold by 6 votes. How did the others go?
Comments
MPS have had ample opportunity to take the Cox report seriously and implement its recommendations. That they have chosen not to do so in the two and a half years since it was published tells me that they care little about bullying and harassment of staff, no matter how many crocodile tears they choose to shed when it is Bercow doing the bullying.
But no not quite a circle as I am triggered by indie SAGE and not by the BBC (although losing Neil was bloody stupid).
Aaron Bastani
@AaronBastani
·
3h
Senior Labour source responds to changes in LOTO from
@Keir_Starmer
"This is a takeover by Labour First. Starmer's operation is being taken off him - he'll be a puppet the Labour right use to now clear the decks".
As foreseen by Gandalf at the start of the Lord of the Rings, Gollum famously had a critical role to play at the end of it.
Arguably Bercow's meddling with Parliamentary procedures against the clerks advice, in order to facilitate amendments by Grieve and ultimately the Benn Act, played the critical role in stoking the anger against the 2017-19 Parliament that allowed Boris to win his election and Get Brexit Done.
After all, there's more to Corbyn and Boris too, but that doesn't undermine the opinion many here hold of both when they criticise them without bringing up the nuance. They don't bring up that nuance every time, does that undo the criticisms?
I would agree that Bercow is not a pantomime villain, except insofar as he seemed to enjoy the pantomime of the role - in which case he or others finding fault with people seeing him in that context seems misplaced to me. One thing people can surely agree on is that Bercow enjoyed the limelight and the theatricalilty of the role in his performances - and people respond to him theatrically as well. Not only can he have no complaints about that, I imagine he would be disappointed if they did not. That's the game he played.
If (impossibly) in due course Mr Speaker Hoyle joined the Tories it would, I think, worry SKS more than Boris.
That's the difference.
The PL needs to get its act together.
@hendopolis
·
2m
INDEPENDENT DIGITAL: Record demand at A&E puts patient lives ‘at risk’ #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/indiespiritbath/status/1406182904397504512?s=19
This is most definitely not the way.
Anyway, this strikes me as significant: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/19/exclusive-matt-hancock-kept-boris-johnson-dark-covid-vaccines/
- Matt Hancock sat on the massive downscaling of hospitalisations in the models until after the meeting at which lockdown was extended.
EDIT - Apologies, no he sat on the data which showed the vaccines were much more effective than had previously been assumed against Delta. Different witholding, same outcome.
I think it is probably intrinsic to hierarchical structures, whether Brewdog, the Speakers Office, Parliament itself, the Royal Family or the NHS. The only way to root it out seems to be non-heirarchical structures, or perhaps that is my inner Anarcho-Syndicalist showing.
It's bad enough that further lockdowns are still apparently being considered as a go to policy for Autumn/winter when really, whilst acceptable as an emergency measure in response to an unknown threat, it should really be possible by now to rule out ever returning to that state of affairs and finding another way.
Somewhere along the line the Government has to stop thinking about how everything has to be done to combat Covid, and actually begin to trade off Covid risks against the serious damage many Covid measures are doing to wider society that could take decades to unravel.
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
17m
STAR EXCLUSIVE: Did the earthling move for you? #TomorrowsPapersToday
Raw food is more hassle but much better for dogs. I have seen it transform their behaviour, in particular reducing aggression and hyperactivity.
https://www.bemoredog.co.uk/diet-the-gut-and-behaviour-raw-vs-kibble/
I don't think you can entirely eliminate, say, bullying, because the personalities we develop and conflicts that arise will at a certain point be just a part of human nature even in an ideal culture and environment (even an anarcho-syndicalist one) but hopefully the more we talk about it being unacceptable means we can still get closer to it actually being unaccepable (which is clearly not the case - public or private institution there are rules, but we all know much of the time they mean nothing).
At the moment bullying is like democracy - even a lot of the most awful people will say it is a bad thing and take steps to look like they adhere to the spirit of it, even when they blatantly don't.
Matt Hancock failed to tell Boris Johnson about a major Public Health England (PHE) study showing the effectiveness of vaccines against the Indian or delta variant during a key meeting to decide whether to extend Covid restrictions, The Telegraph can disclose.
The Telegraph understands that the Health Secretary had known about the PHE data three days before the "quad" of four senior ministers, led by the Prime Minister, met last Sunday to decide whether to postpone the planned June 21 reopening until July 19.
However, multiple sources familiar with the meeting said it was not raised by Mr Hancock or discussed at all during the course of the talks.
The data was also not included in briefing papers given to Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor and Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, in advance of the meeting.
The bombshell disclosure raises the possibility that the quad could have opted to press ahead with lifting the restrictions on Monday if they had been aware of the study, which showed that both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were more effective at preventing hospitalisation with the variant than they were against previous strains.
Unlike football matches, culture is not well supported by Government, so we had an internationally renowned competition in St David's Hall without an audience.
5 amazing young opera singers, with the prize awarded to Gihoon Kim from South Korea. What a wonderful singer.
As Harvard's Kulldorff argues: "You cannot just focus on one disease like COVID, you have to look at public health as a whole. That has been the huge failure of our pandemic response."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57534918
Do we need more saints? John Paul II was crazy when it came to saint making apparently, and there's tons and tons who have been put on the path but haven't had it confirmed yet.
The problem is not the rotten eggs, it is the rotten nature of hierarchical organisations which constantly generates new rotten eggs. Much better are horizontal interconnected nodes. Modern technology allows this in ways that just weren't possible a few decades ago.
Johnson should sack him over this.
I don't even know what your second paragraph is saying. I believe modern technology can do a lot of things, but stopping people forming hierarchies, even unofficial ones, seems beyond it to me.
But nevertheless thought there was nothing wrong with publishing the existing modelling/graphs as background to the June 21st decision.
At the Battle of the Somme the initial bombardment of the German lines used the wrong type of shells, and was known to have likely been largely ineffective in its aims, in advance of the formal order to go over the top being given. But the generals were so committed to the plan that they went ahead anyway.
Apologies for that little non-seqitur/diversion...
Or to inform himself? Or prepare for the meeting?
Imagine Thatcher chairing this covid Quad of ministers.
But then accepted modelling that only went up to June 9th.
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/can-company-succeed-without-hierarchy
They will reason that this is a far lesser evil than precipitously opening up having admitted they made a mistake only to potentially see something go wrong with the figures shortly afterwards.
Yet defections were much more common in the last century than now.
Maybe this would be one idea in a hundred which actually is innovative and effective, that'd be cool.
If it looks like hospitalisations etc have peaked or are nowhere near the graph in a fortnight's time they will be able to say that thanks to the extra data they're now confident.
But inertia plays now to letting the four weeks play out in full, regrettably.
Sadly, those who eventually did bravely leave or were kicked out were not rewarded for it, and so the grip of the parties even when people don't really fit anymore is stronger than ever. The more ridiculous it gets the more people will talk about the need to be 'big tent' to justify it.
Except at local level.
That they didn't last past the 2019 election is neither here nor there.
In practice though, even in hierarchical organisations, people work in non hierarchical ways, because they know that things get done better that way. It is about having a relationship with those who can get things done. A simple example is me emailing a medical physics technician to discuss what investigations would clarify my provisional diagnosis of a patient. It is about allowing task specific teams to form and dissolve in an organic way.
In the NHS, the biggest obstacles to getting things done are egotistical managers and empire builders. Non-heirarchical working bypasses them.
GP surgeries are the cause of oversubscribed A&E's.
He's perfectly pleasant for a few minutes, or even a couple of hours, to a constituent or humble activist. And that's because he doesn't feel his status is under question.
It's quite another matter if you have to work with him or for him.
So who’s going to enforce it then? Are @policescotland being sent to Manchester?
If they are, I think they do need our consent.
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1406276010501419012?s=20
The number of people between the nurses and the minister is well into double digits - which is insane by modern standards.
Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden has concluded that the channel does not have a viable future unless an ‘alternative ownership model’ is explored.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9704195/Ministers-set-reveal-plans-privatise-woke-struggling-Channel-4.html
And ‘opinionated’ is a very strange epithet to throw at a politician you’re trying to mark as distinct from the general herd in any way.
Who knew! Who knew!
The Speaker who tried to stop Brexit joins up with the Labour leader who tried to stop Brexit.
Should be worth an extra 2% to the Tories in the Midlands and the north...
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/15305/local-council-elections-17th-june